GiC, I want you to write this a hundred times: "Church and Empire are not the same thing, as proven by the fact that the Church existed before and after the Empire." And I wonder why so many Emperors held off baptism until their deathbeads? Was it perhaps because you can't run an Empire without sinning against Christ? The first Holy Roman Empire was founded by a catechumen.

« Last Edit: February 03, 2006, 09:19:31 PM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

A war on militant Islam with a watchful eye on North Korea would be an apt description. But it would be unfair to say the US only has targetted Islamic terror groups. The FBI wiped out the Ku-Klux-Klan using tactics that were illegal and unconstitutional. In the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing lots of radical right wing militias were broken up as well.

[quote author=ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂµÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂºÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¹ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¿ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ link=topic=8074.msg105945#msg105945 date=1139019545]A war on militant Islam with a watchful eye on North Korea would be an apt description. [/quote]

I suppose that's too long a title for CNN and Fox News to fit in the headline banner. You say "militant Islam", GiC and Mo say "Islam"........

« Last Edit: February 03, 2006, 10:27:54 PM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ I read some of the blogs of the Iranians and believe they are sincere. I am sure many of them don't want war with the U.S. However, I don't think this will be very comforting to the Americans who also love their children when a "Made in Iran" dirty nuke goes off in one of our cities..........are there any practical ways of keeping this from happening other than decrying "can't we all just get along"? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡

To say the US is fighting Islam and not militant Islam would force a person to overlook the fact that there are many Islamic citizens of the United States that live here like any other American citizen and that the United States and Turkey have a long relationship as allies in addition to other allies in the Muslim world (who are just as terrified of bin Laden as the American government is).

Since I brought it up - I'd also like to point out that the tactics used by the FBI to destroy the KKK were very questionable. Since the goal of the operation was to disrupt the KKK, seeking convictions was only secondary. Hence warrents weren't used, brutal scare tactics were in force, even cases of FBI informants committing murders. KKK leaders were documented engaging in extra-marital affairs and the evidence then delievered to their wives. Much of this is clearly not legal, and most likely not overly Christian, but the US government did all this against a domestic terror group composed of American citizens. I don't always think the ends justify the means, but the world is definetly a better place with the KKK mostly eliminated.

[quote author=ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂµÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂºÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¹ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¿ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ link=topic=8074.msg105954#msg105954 date=1139022815](who are just as terrified of bin Laden as the American government is). [/quote]Then why not seriously go after Bin Laden (instead of giving him a three month head start)? Why invade Iraq if he is a Saudi in Afghanistan?

[quote author=ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂµÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂºÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¹ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¿ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ link=topic=8074.msg105954#msg105954 date=1139022815]To say the US is fighting Islam and not militant Islam would force a person to overlook the fact that there are many Islamic citizens of the United States that live here like any other American citizen[/quote]"Like any other American citizen"? Ha ha ha!!!!!!! Remember when the planes were grouded across America after September 11? When Even George Bush senior couldn't fly? Well guess who could fly and was given permission to be flown out of the US to Saudi Arabia (where, by the way, most of the hijackers came from)? All of Bin Laden's family, that's who. Funny, isn't it, that a "war on militant Islam" actually started with flying all the family of a "militant Islamist" out of your country after that "militant Islamist" had just attacked it, and when no other US citizen was permitted to fly? Who's safety was the first consideration here? If you're looking for a mass murderer, shouldn't you ask his family about him? Isn't inconveniencing them by detaining them and questioning them justified?"War on militant Islam" my Aunt Fanny!!!

« Last Edit: February 04, 2006, 12:23:54 AM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

[quote author=ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂµÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂºÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¹ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¿ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ link=topic=8074.msg105954#msg105954 date=1139022815]To say the US is fighting Islam and not militant Islam would force a person to overlook the fact that there are many Islamic citizens of the United States that live here like any other American citizen and that the United States and Turkey have a long relationship as allies in addition to other allies in the Muslim world (who are just as terrified of bin Laden as the American government is).ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ [/quote]

Islam is historically militant and this is given strong support in their foundational texts. There are very few countries that did not become so through militant agression. That they have not taken over any countries by the sword since the seventeenth century is a result of the fact that "the West" finally won the "arms race". The modern phenemenon of terrorism is simply old-fashioned Islam trying to assert itself under modern circumstances. Certainly we are not at war with 21-st century Islam per se; those who have embraced western values and no longer hold to the historical version of jihad are quite alright. Those who still embrace the type of militant Islam exhibited by Muslims from the time of Mohammed to the 17th century Ottomans are the ones we must battle. Here is the difference between a Muslim terrorist and a "Christian" one. The Muslim one is widely hailed as a martyr by his co-religionists and has very clear foundational texts from his religion to justify his actions. The "Christian" one is widely derided by his co-religionists and has no foundational texts in Scripture or Tradition to justify his actions. Examples of Muslim terrorists are Legion while Christian ones are not. Terrorists of ANY OTHER religion are also few and far between. Moral equivalency simply denies the historically obvious fact that although EVERY religion is composed of fallen humans, SOME religions do officially sanction evil behavior.

In Christ,Rd. David

P.S. Not being a nuclear physicist, I don't know whether the "dirty bomb" link is bogus or not (niether, presumably, would the poster) but, really, can we allow such a country to develop even conventional nuclear weapons?- At what point does tolerance become a form of suicide?

Then why not seriously go after Bin Laden (instead of giving him a three month head start)? Why invade Iraq if he is a Saudi in Afghanistan?

I don't know and not something that I concern myself with.

I simply answered a few of the points brought up in this thread (hopefully) showing that it is mistaken to say that America is simply at war with Islam in general and that the US government hasn't hesitated in the past to take out hostile groups, even if they are composed entirely of white American citizens. As for the invasion of Iraq, the war on terror and other such political matters, I offer no opinion.

Quote

Well guess who could fly and was given permission to be flown out of the US to Saudi Arabia (where, by the way, most of the hijackers came from)? All of Bin Laden's family, that's who. Funny, isn't it, that a "war on militant Islam" actually started with flying all the family of a "militant Islamist" out of your country after that "militant Islamist" had just attacked it, and when no other US citizen was permitted to fly? Who's safety was the first consideration here? If you're looking for a mass murderer, shouldn't you ask his family about him? Isn't inconveniencing them by detaining them and questioning them justified?

I think you've watched Fahrenheit 911 a few too many times.

Quote

"War on militant Islam" my Aunt Fanny!!!

A more precise definition would be appropriate. War on militant Islam that is directly hostile to the interests of the United States. As history has shown America is more than willing to work will Muslims when there is a common objective, even Jihadists.

[quote author=ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂµÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂºÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¹ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¿ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ link=topic=8074.msg105862#msg105862 date=1138949971]Lest we get too caught up in our own propaganda, America supported and sold arms to Hussien.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ [/quote]That statement, while technically true, is misleading. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ Hussein has changed a lot since coming into power (at least externally, it's another matter whether he was always "really" what he later became) ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ The Americans supported the Ba'ath party originally because it was the most stable and internationalist force in Iraq. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ The Ba'ath movement was founded by a Syrian Christian, and was present in a number of Arab countries. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ The time of Hussein's rule up to the war with Iran was a time of economic prosperity, social egalitarianism and internal stability. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ It was only during the fiscal crunch following the war with Iran that Hussein began to become aggressive externally, and extremely reactionary internally. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ Even his controversial use of chemical weapons during the war with Iran was only resorted to in desperation and only aimed at military targets. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ Hussein was in power for decades, and that length of time can greatly change a man. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ It's irrelevant whether America supported Hussein at an earlier time, because the Hussein of earlier times was, for all intents and purposes, a different Hussein from the one that would come later.

[quote author=ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂµÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂºÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¹ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¿ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ link=topic=8074.msg105960#msg105960 date=1139029431]A more precise definition would be appropriate. War on militant Islam that is directly hostile to the interests of the United States. [/quote]How did Iraq fit this "more precise" definition?

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Neither Russia nor China believe this- interestingly, the two countries who also did not believe there were WMD's in Iraq and refused to support the invasion....and they were right, and we were wrong.

This isn't entirely accurate. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ People were looking for a "smoking gun" during the invasion, which was naive. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ The inspectors didn't find such a smoking gun, but they did find smaller caches, as well as evidence that some materials had been destroyed during the war and others exported other Arab states. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ It should also be kept in mind that the weapons weren't the only causus belli. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ There was also the Iraqi support of Palestinian militants and repeated Iraqi violations of the Gulf War ceasefire to consider. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ Iraq had been toying with the UN and its inspectors for years before the invasion, violating regulation after regulation, then backing off at the last moment, while even then limiting themselves to minimal, often nominal, compliance.

I don't think it does. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ I'm on the conservative side of the Republicans (i.e Pat Buchanan style) on many issues, so I'm not a big propenent of the Iraq war. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ But it is still foolish to argue America is at war with Islam in general.

GiC, I want you to write this a hundred times: "Church and Empire are not the same thing, as proven by the fact that the Church existed before and after the Empire." And I wonder why so many Emperors held off baptism until their deathbeads? Was it perhaps because you can't run an Empire without sinning against Christ? The first Holy Roman Empire was founded by a catechumen.

ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ I must confess that I believe I have a kindred spirit on this matter with GiC so I will begin writing on this matter: ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ "The persecuted Church is NOT the same thing as the pagan persecuting Empire, as proven by the fact the the Church existed before and after the (first pagan/ then secular) Empire."......and the fact remains (whether one favors Orthodox Christian Monarchy or not): "Christian leaders and citizens are accountable before God to pass and follow only God-pleasing laws and form God-pleasing societies when they may do so." ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ And "so many emperors held off baptism until their deathbeds"? Really, apart from he whom the Church venerates as St. Constantine the Great, who did this? And WHY he did this is surely easily understood in light of the times without prejudice to his sanctity which the Church affirms? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ Also, I think we all know who the catechumen referred to was- AND that he was widely regarded by the Orthodox as an usurper? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ When approaching the interplay of Church and State or trying to understand current events with an Orthodox mindset, let's depend less on Charles Gibbon. the humanist Renaissance, and Michael Moore and more on the Holy Fathers and actual historical precedent.................

ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¯Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¿Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â½ When approaching the interplay of Church and State or trying to understand current events with an Orthodox mindset, let's depend less on Charles Gibbon. the humanist Renaissance, and Michael Moore and more on the Holy Fathers and actual historical precedent.................

Who should we depend on? The Westboro Baptist Church? Pat Robinson?

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

WHICH Holy Fathers represent the position of the Westboro Baptist Church rather than Holy Orthodoxy, Ozgeorge? As fellow Orthodox Christians I would assume you knew what/whom I meant? Too much time is wasted in Internet discussions in pointing out the obvious to rebut flippant remarks rather than in real point/ counterpoint discussion...........

Too much time is wasted in Internet discussions in pointing out the obvious to rebut flippant remarks rather than in real point/ counterpoint discussion...........

Interesting and true observation - I am living proof of that fact (go over the majority of my posts - there is little in the way of productive content therein).

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

WHICH Holy Fathers represent the position of the Westboro Baptist Church rather than Holy Orthodoxy, Ozgeorge? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡

David,Pat Robinson and Westboro Baptist Church are opposite extremes of the same thing. The attempt to treat secular national govenment in the same way the way the Fathers viewed the role of Emperors of the Holy Empire. Westboro holds that the government is failing it's duty, Pat holds that the govcernment is fulfilling God's will. But neither of them is correct because secular government cannot be compared to the role of the Holy Emperors. So the answer is, none of the Fathers do, but attempts are made to do so. The reality is that Christendom no longer exists, and we as a society have chosen this. There is nothing left to defend against immorality or heresy. So lets stop behaving like there is.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

I agree that Christendom no longer exists as it once did. However I believe a better model for our approach to the situation is to imitate the Fathers who lived before Christendom and how they dealt with the Empire of pagan Rome. Speak up for what is right and strive for God-pleasing changes in the culture. Do not retreat into a spiritual ghetto. By engaging the world we may transform it as we did before...... Yes, society has largely chosen to form what is. They did so when they stopped believing for the most part. We who still believe ought to choose something different than what is and strive for what ought to be.

The one place where I think the plan of imitating the fathers of the pre-Constantinian period will come short is that those who do take up the Cross and fight against the nearly-pagan society will not have the same tight-knit, intensely faithful group for support. These were their bedrocks, people that would be willing to not only take up the Cross from them when they were martyred, but also who were able to use the martyrdom of the Saints as a recruiting call for the Church of the Greatest Martyr Christ. Now, while I don't like to be a skeptic, I don't think we have these incredibly faithful communities to back up the Saints - but we have the potential. We have communities on the road to becoming more spiritually mature; but their faith must be tested, and they must endure.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

The only way to deal with Iran, to prevent them from proliferating, is for Western nations to disarm. It is rather hypocritical that we can have such dangerous nuclear weapons while Iran cannot.

How does getting rid of our weapons get rid of their weapons? Are you saying that you believe if we disarm then someone like the current Iranian president would follow suit? I don't see the cause and effect relationship here....

The only way to deal with Iran, to prevent them from proliferating, is for Western nations to disarm. It is rather hypocritical that we can have such dangerous nuclear weapons while Iran cannot.

WOW dddddUUDDEE ,you are so right!!! What planet do you live on ? Disarm ? Are you out of your mind?As I already posted on another thread , you are an automatron. No rational person would ever suggest such an irrational thing...unless they were a robot ...or a ....( edited )

Logged

"Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names." - John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)

ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦nbsp; ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦nbsp;How does getting rid of our weapons get rid of their weapons? Are you saying that you believe if we disarm then someone like the current Iranian president would follow suit? I don't see the cause and effect relationship here....

That's because you are using the logical part of your brain. Matthew777's brain however is stuck up ... well, nevermind. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦nbsp;

The only way to deal with Iran, to prevent them from proliferating, is for Western nations to disarm. It is rather hypocritical that we can have such dangerous nuclear weapons while Iran cannot.

This idea applies a Christian principle of the Golden Rule to a nation that is neither secular/responsible nor Christian, but rather a faith that is not only opposed in general to Christianity, but also is predisposed to eradicate the True Faith of Christ.

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ How does getting rid of our weapons get rid of their weapons? Are you saying that you believe if we disarm then someone like the current Iranian president would follow suit? I don't see the cause and effect relationship here....

If Iran did not feel threatened by other nations, what need would they have for nuclear weapons?

"...Despite these worrisome concerns, there are many reasons to counteract this drift toward more violence in the Middle East.

ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â§ First, the Iranian threat is remote; according to most predictions, should Tehran decide to go nuclear, it would not have weapons before 2008 at the earliest.

ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â§ Second, the United States, and even Israel, will continue to have such overwhelming military superiority as to dissuade Iran from aggressive action unless its leaders are ready to commit national suicide.

ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â§ Third, unlike Iraq in 1981, Iran's multiple nuclear facilities are geographically dispersed and much better defended, with many of them located in underground bunkers, making their destruction, especially by Israel acting alone, far more difficult.

ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â§ Fourth, Iran has the means to launch a devastating retaliation with conventional weapons, including its Shahab-3 missiles, which can reach targets in Israel with reasonable accuracy. And Iran has other military options, including intervention on the Shiite side in Iraq, which could turn the disastrous US occupation there into a worse nightmare, with skyrocketing casualties. Iran could also vastly increase its support to Islamist resistance forces in the Palestinian territories and to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â§ Fifth, as the world's fourth-largest oil producer, Iran could plunge the world into an immediate deep recession by embargoing its oil if it is attacked, or if an attack appears imminent.

ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â§ Sixth, an Israeli or US attack on Iran would almost certainly strengthen Islamist tendencies throughout the region as well as put intense pressure on Arab governments to react much more strongly against the United States and Israel. And heightened threats against Iran would only strengthen the hard-liners there. By all accounts, Iranians--even those who detest the mullahs--overwhelmingly support their country's nuclear ambitions."http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/falk

This idea applies a Christian principle of the Golden Rule to a nation that is neither secular/responsible nor Christian, but rather a faith that is not only opposed in general to Christianity, but also is predisposed to eradicate the True Faith of Christ.

And let's not forget whose leader has publicly stated the goal of wiping another nation state off the face of the map. In no instance has the U.S. or any other Western Nation threatened to eradicate a country - change it's government, yes. But not eradicate its people.

If Iran did not feel threatened by other nations, what need would they have for nuclear weapons? .

ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â§ Second, the United States, and even Israel, will continue to have such overwhelming military superiority as to dissuade Iran from aggressive action unless its leaders are ready to commit national suicide.

regionhttp://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/falk

That Is exactly the point ,you robot! As a MILITANT MUSLIM, the President(of Iran) is ready to sacrifice his entire country to fulfill " Allah`s Will".

Logged

"Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names." - John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)

ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ That Is exactly the point ,you robot!ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ As a MILITANT MUSLIM, the President(of Iran) is ready to sacrifice his entire country to fulfill " Allah`s Will".

The concept of unilateral disarmament is not as absurd as some may think. In 1948 Costa Rica unilaterally disarmed its entire nation, whereas here we are only discussing nuclear weapons, the ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ peace dividend of this action by Costa Rica has been sufficient that today it has the highest life expectancy of all the Latin American countries. Furthermore, it should be noted that this concept is not at all foreign to the United States. Prior to the second world war the US military was restricted to numbers that were counted in the 10's of thousands during peace time, we would mobilize for war when necessary, then disband the majority of our military only maintaining enough to have an experienced Senior Officer and NCO corps in event of a future conflict. The economic benifits of such a system should be self-evident.

Of course unilateral disarmament only works if non-agressive and friendly diplomacy is used along with it, while avoiding getting involved in the affairs of others. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, 'Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none.' Look at Switzerland, how many terrorists have been targeting that country? Where in the world do you hear of the Swiss being revered to as devils? Their approach worked quite well for them, perhaps we too should eliminate our threats to the world pursuing a similar path towards peace and properity.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

GiC: ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦nbsp; You and I and everyone knows that ( see original post)ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦nbsp; there is not a snowballs chance in hell of that happening. Have you been drinking again? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ If so....Hey Bartender , I`ll have what he`s (points at Gic) drinking!

« Last Edit: February 04, 2006, 11:55:32 PM by Mo the Ethio »

Logged

"Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names." - John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)

Well, he's standing next to me, and it does not appear that he is drinking (especially after what we went through last night... I don't know if there's much left!)

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ That Is exactly the point ,you robot!ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ As a MILITANT MUSLIM, the President(of Iran) is ready to sacrifice his entire country to fulfill " Allah`s Will".

Actually, I don't think you're taking seriously enough the belief by conservative moslems that one cannot divorce their theology from their praxis, thus the president must be willing to sacrifice the entire populous for the sake of Allah, especially if there is a push to destroy the infidel.

Islam struck when it was not threatened in the centuries from the 9th to the 15th/16th. Islam struck when it was not threatened in the 2000's. I hope this recent trend does not continue like the last one did!

Logged

"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.